On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusi...@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Others will follow later in separate patches. Or is it preferred to have one > huge patch submitted?
Please yes. One change makes little sense. >> Personally, I think this is not important, but if you want to do it, I'd >> follow the suggestion in the thread to rename all functions and leave >> the old names as aliases or wrappers of some kind. > > I think I agree with Michael Paquier: "Better to do breakages in a single > release rather than spreading them across releases.". > There's going to be a lot of broken scripts following pg_xlog rename, so I > think it makes sense to just drop functions as well. For consistency that makes sense in my view. But I won't be too noisy as well if people think that we should keep aliases for compatibility. > We don't maintain pg_xlog -> pg_wal symlink, do we? This part would be a mess for base backups, that's why we didn't do it. Symlinks are equivalent to empty directories in the pg_basebackup world. So by having one you would very likely break your backup *and* restore tools silently. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
